STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
v. Durham County
No. 01 CRS 56695
REGINALD MERCER,
Defendant.
Attorney General Roy Cooper, by Assistant Attorney General
Sueanna P. Sumpter, for the State.
Samuel L. Bridges for defendant-appellant.
ELMORE, Judge.
Defendant was charged with common law robbery. Before trial,
defendant moved that the State's witnesses be sequestered so that
each witness could “recall from their complete recordation what
they recall happening.” The trial court denied the motion. The
State's evidence tended to show that in the early morning hours of
15 October 2001, Adrianne Traxinger (Traxinger) drove home after
visiting a friend. Traxinger parked her vehicle and walked towards
her apartment building. As Traxinger approached the building,
defendant came up to her and asked her for money. Traxinger told
defendant she would not give him money and kept walking. Defendant
grabbed Traxinger's ponytail when she reached the entrance of herapartment building, rammed her face into the gate and kicked her
until she let go of her purse. Defendant ran off with the purse
and Traxinger followed him. Defendant started emptying the purse's
contents and Traxinger began picking up the items. When a twenty
dollar bill came out of the purse, defendant put it in his pocket
and walked away while Traxinger continued to collect the contents
of her purse.
Traxinger testified at trial that she described her attacker
as approximately five feet, eight inches tall and stocky. Officer
Timothy Clapp of the Durham Police Department testified that when
he interviewed Traxinger the morning of the incident, she described
her attacker as being about five feet six to seven inches tall,
with a medium build, weighing 165 to 170 pounds. Detective Bret
Hallan, who interviewed Traxinger two days after the incident,
testified that Traxinger described her attacker as five feet seven
to eight inches tall, with a stocky build and weighing
approximately 175 pounds. Traxinger subsequently picked defendant
out of a photo line-up.
A jury found defendant guilty as charged. The trial court
sentenced defendant twenty-one to twenty-six months imprisonment.
Defendant appeals.
In his sole argument on appeal, defendant contends the trial
court abused its discretion in denying defendant's motion to
sequester the State's witnesses. Defendant argues that because
the victim's description of defendant varied, sequestration was
necessary so that each detective would testify without the benefitof hearing the description given by the victim at trial. We
disagree.
Sequestration serves the dual purpose of acting “as a
restraint on witnesses tailoring their testimony to that of earlier
witnesses” as well as “detecting testimony that is less than
candid.” State v. Harrell, 67 N.C. App. 57, 64, 312 S.E.2d 230,
236 (1984). Upon a motion to sequester witnesses in a criminal
case, “the judge may order all or some of the witnesses other than
the defendant to remain outside of the courtroom until called to
testify[.]” N.C. Gen. Stat. § 15A-1225 (2003). “A ruling on a
motion to sequester witnesses rests within the sound discretion of
the trial court, and the court's denial of the motion will not be
disturbed in the absence of a showing that the ruling was so
arbitrary that it could not have been the result of a reasoned
decision.” State v. Call, 349 N.C. 382, 400, 508 S.E.2d 496,
507-08 (1998).
Although defendant alleges that he wanted the detectives to
testify from only their own recollection, he has cited nothing in
the record to show that Officer Clapp or Detective Hallan tailored
their testimony to the victim's earlier testimony or that their
testimony was less than candid. In the absence of such a showing,
we perceive no abuse of discretion and this assignment of error is
overruled.
No error.
Judges TIMMONS-GOODSON and CALABRIA concur.
Report per Rule 30(e).
*** Converted from WordPerfect ***